What property of the universe leads us to conclude that it required a cause to exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luke_K
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hooding_Trees said:
Absolutely correct. Either definite articles need a creator of they don’t. You can’t just say that everything needs a creator and then miraculously forget to include bog. Either everything needs a creator or it doesn’t but bog is part of everything as per the laws of non contradiction and excluded middle. :confused:👍
Click to expand...
You are attributing a false premise to what other people are saying. Do you have a problem understanding what people are saying? If so, i suggest you humbly seek what people are actually saying, instead of arrogantly making up a false premise and attributing it to the words of other people. That’s called a straw-man.

This reveals either your inability to understand the concepts of the argument laid forth (in which case you should admit that and ask for guidance), or it reveals you refusal to be honest.
 
Hooding_Trees said:
The skeptical viewpoint that what underlies space and time is unknown can hardly be described as an assertion. It is a factual statement of knowledge and this preposterous attempt at a rejoinder underscores your lack of critical analysis in a manner that damages your indefensible position far more than the most vehement attack ever could.

👍
Click to expand...
All due respect, but. perhaps you should re-read my response to moonstruck and moonstruck’s post to me, before exposing yourself by foolish comments, such as your last post.

God bless,
jd
 
Hooding_Trees said:
Interesting. 👍

In your blind, flailing, burbon fulelled stupor, you have just succeeded in cementing the position that God requires a creator…

Kudos to you sir.
Click to expand...
You must be intentionally trying to get the attention of the moderator.
 
tonyrey said:
You are making at least three unverifiable assumptions:
  1. Physical energy is the sole form of energy.
  2. The physical universe is eternal.
  3. The principle of induction is absolute.
Click to expand...
Actually, as I’ve repeatedly stated, I am not pretending to have the answers to the questions of from whence came the Universe. I don’t know how the Universe got here, and I suspect it may not be knowable.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Then why do you participate on a philosophy forum if you have no interest in philosophy. You have made it obvious that you have know interest in understanding philosophy or the philosophy of those you debate with. So what’s your problem? Your attitude is not much different from somebody who enjoys trolling.
Click to expand...
I have an interest in the kinds of questions that are being asked here. I have an interest in how other people think. I just don’t see the point in reading weighty tomes on logic when I follow a different path.
 
awatkins69 said:
Not quite. We can prove that something can only be reduced from potentiality to actuality only by something in actuality because the gap between being and not being is infinite. To criticize the premises you must prove it wrong.
Click to expand...
No sir. That is not how academia works. The burden of proof is on the person making a claim to knowledge. You’ve made a very definitive claim here, and now you must back it up with evidence if you want it to be taken seriously.
I’d hope that logic is of consequence to you, because that is the basis we come to conclusions about God on. If you are not concerned with logic at least do not pontificate on God’s existence. Certainly I’d recommend not shooting from the hip while trying to criticize logical premises, when the logicality of those premises is of no importance to you. As for your second sentence, I’d like to know the basis upon which you recognize any a priori knowledge. Unless of course you reject all a priori knowledge, thus leaving you without mathematics, making nearly all science entirely unintelligible. Or how about logic, universals, morality, nature of being, etc?
Click to expand...
I recognize a priori knowledge when the predictions it makes agrees with observation based experiments that are repeatable.
 
I gave you a reason why it’s true. You need to prove it wrong. There are no examples of it being proven wrong, and it is more consistent with experience than saying it’s not true.

That the science you love so much expresses objective truths is based on an epistemological commitment to the logical framework of realism. Now, you either (1) believe in realism based on some logical reason, or (2) it’s just mere opinion. If 1, then you must explain why everything but science cannot be explained in logical terms. If 2, then you’re basing your ideas on blind faith, which is fine, but you’d be a hypocrite.

Again, all those things that I listed cannot be explained by the arbitrary standard you’ve given for something to qualify as truth, yet somehow I doubt you deny them as truths.
 
awatkins69 said:
I gave you a reason why it’s true. You need to prove it wrong. There are no examples of it being proven wrong, and it is more consistent with experience than saying it’s not true.
Click to expand...
Give me it again then, because I have no idea what you said that was supposed to be a reason why it’s true…
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Give me it again then, because I have no idea what you said that was supposed to be a reason why it’s true…
Click to expand...
Sure. It is absolutely impossible for something to be both in actuality and potentiality in the same respect. For it to be otherwise would violate the principle of contradiction. So something else in actuality is necessary for something in potentiality to be reduced to that state of actuality. For instance my dog is actually wet because it jumped in the water. It is actually wet and potentially not-wet. Now, for it to become actually not-wet and potentially wet, there must be some efficient cause which reduces it to that state, in this case evaporation. Literally everything in science is based on this very basic causal principle.
 
Moonstruck888 said:
Actually, as I’ve repeatedly stated, I am not pretending to have the answers to the questions of from whence came the Universe. I don’t know how the Universe got here, and I suspect it may not be knowable.
Click to expand...
In that case you are not justified in assuming:

“Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, ergo it must always have existed”.
 
awatkins69 said:
Sure. It is absolutely impossible for something to be both in actuality and potentiality in the same respect. For it to be otherwise would violate the principle of contradiction. So something else in actuality is necessary for something in potentiality to be reduced to that state of actuality. For instance my dog is actually wet because it jumped in the water. It is actually wet and potentially not-wet. Now, for it to become actually not-wet and potentially wet, there must be some efficient cause which reduces it to that state, in this case evaporation. Literally everything in science is based on this very basic causal principle.
Click to expand...
Right. Here’s the bit where you lose me…

Why is God exempt?
 
tonyrey said:
In that case you are not justified in assuming:

“Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, ergo it must always have existed”.
Click to expand...
That is not an assumption, but a statement of fact. Unfortunately, it does not explain from whence came the Universe.
 
awatkins69 said:
Because God is pure act, which we deduce from the syllogistic argument I posted earlier.
Click to expand...
So God is pure act. What exactly is that supposed to explain? How come God is pure act, exempt from investigation and yet the big bang can’t just be pure act?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top